alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Patriot Bank Corp.

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-97307, No. 333-13981 and No. 333-62123) on Forms S-8 of
Patriot Bank Corp. of our report dated February 20, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Patriot Bank Corp. as of December 31, 2003 and
2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K
of Patriot Bank Corp. Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets in 2002, and SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities in 2001.

KPMG  LLP

KPMG LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 10, 2004

                                       93
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Kinetek, Inc., an Illinois corporation (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m (a)) and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: November 2, 2005

 

/s/ Daniel D. Drury                        

Daniel D. Drury

Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.3**




Written
      Statement of Principal Financial Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. von
      Gnechten, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
      my
      knowledge, that:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of December 31, 2005 and results of operations for
      the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.






/s/
      Richard A. von Gnechten


______________________________


Richard
      A. von Gnechten


Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)





March
      31,
      2006





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1701

SIDDI JON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; BRIAN CHAN; PROFESSIONAL CHOICE, 

INCORPORATED; CNA; MARCELLA WOODS LLC, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-00632-JFM) 

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Siddi Jon, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Wood Bryant, POPE & 

HUGHES, PA, Townson, Maryland; Michael Paul Tanczyn, Townson, 

Maryland; Jeffrey M. Kotz, Townson, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Siddi Jon appeals the district court’s order granting 

the Defendants’ motion to dismiss her civil actions related to 

the foreclosure action that culminated in the sale of her home. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny Jon’s motion for default judgment and 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jon v. 

Washington Mut. Bank, No. 1:08-cv-00632-JFM (D. Md. May 19, 

2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
ex10.htm


    
      

      

    


    


    Exhibit
10.5

    


    


    Schedule
of individual officers party to Senior executive employment Agreement to
Arbitrate dated as of April 29, 2003 (incorporated by reference to the Company’s
Report on Form 10 – K for the year ended April 30, 2003)

    


    


    William
J. Pesce

    Ellis E.
Cousens

    Stephen
A. Kippur

    Eric A.
Swanson

    Bonnie E.
Lieberman

    Stephen M. Smith
Ex - 99.2


December 27, 2002





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


101 Centre Port Dr., Suite 250


Greensboro, NC 27409





Ladies and Gentlemen:





As of and for the period ended September 30, 2002, Oakwood Acceptance Corporation, LLC (the Company) has complied in all material respects with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP).





As of and for this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $6,000,000 each.





/s/    Myles E. Standish



/s/    Robert A. SmithMyles E. Standish President and Chief Executive Officer



Robert A. Smith Executive Vice President  Financial Operations





/s/    Suzanne H. Wood



/s/    Timothy J. GraffSuzanne H. Wood Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Timothy J. Graff Executive Vice President  Customer Operations





/s/    Jimmy S. Griffin



/s/    Derek M. SuretteJimmy S. Griffin Senior Vice President 
Default Management, Oakwood Acceptance Corporation, LLC



Derek M. Surette Vice President and Controller  Oakwood Acceptance Corporation, LLC




---




Report of Independent Accountants





December 17, 2002





To the Board of Directors


of Oakwood Acceptance Corporation, LLC





We have examined
managements assertion about Oakwood Acceptance Corporation, LLCs (the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers(USAP) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2002 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the entitys compliance based on our examination.





Our
examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the minimum servicing
standards and performing such other procedures, as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Companys compliance with the minimum servicing standards.





In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended September 30, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
# C_2019423EN.01002501.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 September 2019 — Novo Banco S.A. v Junta de Andalucía

(Case C-712/19)

(2019/C 423/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Novo Banco S.A.

Respondent: Junta de Andalucía

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, respectively, be interpreted as precluding, inter alia, a system of deductions like that laid down for the IDECA in points 2 and 3 of Article 6(7) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 of 3 December on fiscal measures for the reduction of the government deficit and for sustainability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, respectively, be interpreted as precluding, inter alia, a system of deductions like that laid down for the IDECA in points 2 and 3 of Article 6(7) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 of 3 December on fiscal measures for the reduction of the government deficit and for sustainability?

| 2. | Must the tax on customer deposits in credit institutions in Andalusia (IDECA) be categorised as an indirect tax despite the fact that Article 6(2) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 classifies it as a direct tax, and, in that case, are its existence and chargeability compatible with VAT, in the light of the provisions of Articles 401 and 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive. (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the tax on customer deposits in credit institutions in Andalusia (IDECA) be categorised as an indirect tax despite the fact that Article 6(2) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 classifies it as a direct tax, and, in that case, are its existence and chargeability compatible with VAT, in the light of the provisions of Articles 401 and 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive. (1)

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
Motion Granted; Order filed September 22, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00586-CR

____________

EX PARTE WILLIAM SOLOMON LEWIS

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1678565

ORDER

Appellant filed a motion requesting to review the record and file a pro se 

brief. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 185th District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local 

procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before

October 7, 2020; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which 

delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief 

with this court within thirty days of that date.
PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
#### Lori-Ann Jones v. William A. Murray, III et al.1

Superior Court, Hampden, SS

No. 200400370

Memorandum Dated August 11, 2004

1

Christopher Keefe and Walter C. Wolfe, as the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Westfield; and Donald York, Building Commissioner of the City of Westfield.

Carhart, J.

The plaintiff, Lori-Ann Jones (Jones), *pro se,*filed this action pursuant to G.L.c. 40A, §17, on April 16, 2004, seeking judicial review of a decision of the defendant, City of Westfield Zoning Board of Appeals (the ZBA) affirming a decision of the defendant, Donald York (York), Building Commissioner of the Ciiy of Westfield. The defendants now move to dismiss Jones’ complaint for failure to state a short, plain statement of the claim under Mass.RCiv.P. 12(b)(6); failure to serve timely notice of the action, on the city clerk as required by G.L.c. 40A, §17; and failure to join necessary parties pursuant to Mass.RCiv.P. 12(b)(7). The defendants’ motion is allowed.

Jones filed her appeal and a copy of her complaint with the Westfield city clerk on April 16, 2004, twenty-four days after the ZBA filed its decision. Jones argues that her action should survive as she relied on “ambiguous information given to the Plaintiff by the Defendants,” and filed her appeal with the Superior Court on April 9, 2004, only eighteen days after the ZBA filed its decision. However, “(flailures in meeting the twenty-day deadline are not forgiven.” *Bingham v. City Council of Fitchburg,*52 Mass.App.Ct. 566, 569-70 (2001) (citations omitted) (where plaintiff gave copy of action to mayor fifteen minutes after clerk’s office closed on twentieth day, and where clerk not aware of action until following day). “Timely institution of an appeal should be held a condition sine qua non, while other steps in carrying out the appeal should be treated on a less rigid basis.” *Id.*at 568, quoting *Pierce v. Bd. of Appeals of Carver,*369 Mass. 804, 811 (1976). Jones’ blame on the defendants for her failure to file timely is misplaced, as it is “(t]he plaintiff [who] should ensure the accomplishment of such a potentially outcome-determinative matter.” *Bingham,*52 Mass.App.Ct. at 571; see also *O’Blenes v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lynn,*397 Mass. 555, 558 (1986) (holding plaintiffs counsel’s reliance on statement of clerk of board of appeals regarding final date for filing of appeal with city clerk unreasonable). “The public interest in assuring that there is a timely record in the city clerk’s office giving ‘notice to interested persons that the decision of the board of appeals has been challenged and may be overturned,’ requires strict enforcement of the statutory notice requirements.” *O’Blenes,*397 Mass. at 558, quoting *Pierce,*369 Mass. at 808.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby *ORDERED*that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is *ALLOWED.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas R.
Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: September 13, 2006



By:

/s/ Douglas R. YoungName:

Douglas R. YoungTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
649.0338
US_122613788

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

______________________________________

Travis Fields,

Plaintiff,

v.

American InterContinental University ; and 

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

______________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-00360-RL-SLC

(

(

D

R

H

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-entitled action have resolved the issues alleged in 

the complaint in this action, and have negotiated in good faith for that purpose; and

WHEREAS, none of the parties to the above-captioned action is an infant or incompetent 

person; and

WHEREAS, the parties in the above-captioned action wish to discontinue the litigation;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and/or their 

respective counsel as follows that, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the above-captioned action 

is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without costs to any party.

Travis Fields

___/s/ Amy L. Cueller __________

Amy L. Cueller, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC

43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor

Wilton, CT 06897

(203) 653-2250

Attorney for Plaintiff 

American InterContinental University, Inc.

_/s/ Terance A. Gonsalves _____________

Terance Gonsalves, Esq.

Katten Muchin Rosenman

525 West Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60661-3693

(312) 902-5200

Attorney for Defendant

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00360-RL-SLC document 23 filed 10/18/16 page 1 of 3
US_122613788 2

_____________________________

SO ORDERED

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00360-RL-SLC document 23 filed 10/18/16 page 2 of 3
US_122613788

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 18, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Stipulation of Dismissal was served electronically by the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Indiana Electronic Document Filing System (ECF) and that the document is available 

on the ECF system. 

By_/s/ Amy L. Cueller_______

 

 Amy L. Cueller

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00360-RL-SLC document 23 filed 10/18/16 page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         725,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,722,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,554,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,439,410
<PP&E>                                       6,693,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,722,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,960,911
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,867
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,530,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,722,373
<SALES>                                      9,251,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,251,783
<CGS>                                        7,633,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,633,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,068,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             423,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (874,463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (874,463)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (874,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1 

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate and an 

adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. REID submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the 

Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That (a) when the Senate adjourns or re3 cesses on any day from Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 

4 through Monday, January 10, 2011, on a motion offered 

5 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority 

6 leader or his designee, it stand adjourned or recessed until 

7 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, or until the time 

8 of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

9 resolution, whichever occurs first; and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

SCON 1 ATS 

1 (b) when the House adjourns on the legislative day 

2 of Wednesday, January 12, 2011, on a motion offered 

3 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority 

4 leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on 

5 Tuesday, January 18, 2011, or until the time of any re6 assembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolu7 tion, whichever occurs first; and when the House adjourns 

8 on any legislative day from Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 

9 through Friday, January 28, 2011, on a motion offered 

10 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority 

11 leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on 

12 Tuesday, February 8, 2011, or until the time of any re13 assembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolu14 tion, whichever occurs first. 

15 SEC. 2. (a) The majority leader of the Senate, or his 

16 designee, after consultation with the minority leader of the 

17 Senate, or his designee, shall notify the Members of the 

18 Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may 

19 designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall war20 rant it. 

21 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

22 when the Senate recesses or adjourns on a motion offered 

23 pursuant to this subsection by its majority leader or his 

24 designee, the Senate shall again stand recessed or adVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:37 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC1.ATS SC1

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

SCON 1 ATS 

1 journed pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 

2 resolution. 

3 SEC. 3. The Speaker or his designee, after consulta4 tion with the minority leader of the House, shall notify 

5 Members of the House to reassemble at such place and 

6 time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public in7 terest shall warrant it. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021028EN.01003902.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (SADIA)

(Case T-310/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SADIA - Earlier national word mark SAIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Principle of sound administration - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 28/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand-Lieu, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance and M. Aïtelli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1857/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tipiak and BRF Singapore Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---